Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
if a big bank goes under. second, it said to wall street firms, you can't take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis. and third, it put in place the stronger -- the strongest consumer protections in history. now, to make sure that these protections worked - so ordinary people were dealt with fairly, so they could make informed decisions about their finances - we didn't just change the law. we changed the way the government did business. for years, the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. so if you had a problem with a mortgage lender, you called one place. if you had a problem with a credit card company, you called somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were responsible, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge, with just one job -- looking out for regular people in the financial system. now, this is an idea that i got from elizabeth warren, who i first met years ago. back then -- this is long before the financial crisis -- elizabeth wa
. well, yes and no. in their derrick the church was the big power. kings and queens could not move without the permission of the church. nowadays it is big business. when you have big business influence washington, d.c., people like yourself, this is what you are going to get. you cannot have foxes guarding the hen house. host: all right. your response. guest: if you talk about specific tax credits, i think he's right. i don't think it is just big business. i think it is the aarp, i think it is the big labor unions. i think it is everybody. the whole fact is the federal the whole fact is the federal government is too big and it is in areas it shouldn't be. if you read the constitution, you also read the enumerated powers which gives limited powers to the federal government and specifically states everything not listed here is reserved for the people in the states. the reason we have a $3.6 trillion, $3.7 trillion budget, is a trillion and a half of that or more is stuff that's not our responsibility in the first place. sho look, i'm one of the few republicans that stands up and say
money for a tiny wheel, about this big, the onus is on the defense department to get these costs under control. i do not think congress will just let them come especially with the budget coming down, looked the other way. host: megan scully with "national journal." and the piece is called "the pentagon premium." thank you for joining us. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. we go to the floor of the house of representatives. continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: we begin another week in political wonderland. the dow falls 100 points at the opening bell. what is it that we should do? well, if we had the knowledge and problem solving skills of college sophomore economic students or women in a church study group, before the week is out we would establish some simple steps. first, we would understand that in a divided government with real economic challenges no one group is allowed especially those representing a minority of opinion to have their way entirely. we would begin by repealing the silly debt ceiling
. this is something economists and political science could study. in my view of congress basically is a big villain in many different issues. when congress spends money directly on r&d it doesn't do that great of a job. if you're spending money on r&d during wartime because it's inside lated from congress because it's patriotism but if you're working through an institutional structure such as n.i.h. where there is indirect accountability but not direct answering for individual grants and decisions this works quite well and what we need to do as social scientist is come up with more structures of this kind, things like the medicare payments advisory board but set it up in a way where it can work and we can actually preserve enough money in the system to be spending on longer term purposes. another issue i focus on to a considerable degree is demography. we need to think long-term. humankind has never in its history had societies which will be as old as the societies which we're getting now and which will become older with each year. the frightening truth is that we don't even actually know if this w
if your dreams are not big enough and they scare you, then they are not big enough to beat the dreams of dhaka to scare you and we have to dream about when we are really on the team and when we are really on the team we may take one for the team occasionally. only when it is our turn. but if they are not letting us on the team we can't take it anymore, and the fact that this is really serious, this whole thing about social security, about health care, all of this could come unraveled, and these dharma courts the decision and all was that, these are all impacting women and children and all of the cuts are women and children that is not the america that i am a part of. so, when in, people were going to tell you ten reasons they are mad they don't want to go vote, just tell them get mad and go vote. but the real reason to go vote, or you will not believe how bad your next time. thank you for everything you've been doing. thank you. thank you. [applause] [cheering] cheering] "washington journal" continues. host: this is david keating, executive director of the club for growth, which is wh
senate procedure, the regular order but have attempted to solve this big problem in secret, behind closed doors with just a few people. i believe that is contrary to the historical understanding of the role of congress and i'm not happy about it, i oppose it a i object to it and i expect an appropriate amount of time to consider whatever plan comes ded women like them guard these hallowed halls. mr. president, some of those dedicated police officers stood guard saturday and sunday as we worked to reach an agreement to avert a default on our national debt. leaders from both parties were here throughout the weekend. differences still separate our two sides but work toward an agreement continues. this afternoon, i will put on the floor a proposal to -- that i hope will break that impasse. this legislation would put to rest the specter of default. it would cut $2.7 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. it would not raise any new revenue or make any cuts to medicare, medicaid or social security. all the cuts included in this package have previously been supported by republicans. the
are making it more difficult to get there. so i'm a big fan of the navy with one important exception that is on that saturday in november when we play the army-navy football game. >> having gone from the naval academy into the marine corp., i don't watch that game very often. so -- but it does seem to me that we are at tend of another inevitable historical cycle here when we have extended ground combat deployments that expand the size of the active duty army into the marine corp. at the expense very often of what i would call national strategic assets like our operational navy. i think i'm hearing from you that the same thing i heard from secretary panetta that the 313 ship goal for the navy is a reasonable goal. would that be correct? >> well, my ingaugements over the past three months suggest to me that it is. but again, i think we had a conversation a bit earlier about how do we keep strategy at pace with resource decisions. so that comprehensive strategy review that we're doing should it seems to me re-enforce that or cause it to think differently about it. one of the things i th
airports as small as asheville, from the airport such as delta county, minot. so it's a mixture of big airports and small airport that have gotten into best practices in terms of what are the kinds of things appropriate for each airport. >> again, let me go on to mr. lord. i have a lot of questions in a limited amount of time. you're talking about spending on, for instance, baggage screening equipment. i'll speak from experience the airport i use most is the corpus christi airport. we have three airlines, american, continental with small regional jets and southwest with 737's. each individual airline has a screening machine staffed by two t.s.a. agents. we bought three machines for the corpus christi airport. and there's probably a fourth one because delta used to come in there. why couldn't there just be one and a couple of t.s.a. agents? there are never that many people there. why are -- do we have any clue why we're spending multiple -- >> that's a great question. t.s.a. has an electronic baggage screening program which they're trying to move to what they term optimal solutions for
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8